New Paltz is setting a very bad example

Thursday

Feb 7, 2013 at 2:00 AM

If New York is ever going to reduce the overlapping and costly bureaucracy that is evident in a system of multiple governments jostling each other for a slice of the tax dollar, it needs to have a rational discussion among informed citizens. If ever there were a community that provides the raw material for that sort of dialogue, it would be New Paltz, where a town and village exist for no good reason other than tradition.

If New York is ever going to reduce the overlapping and costly bureaucracy that is evident in a system of multiple governments jostling each other for a slice of the tax dollar, it needs to have a rational discussion among informed citizens. If ever there were a community that provides the raw material for that sort of dialogue, it would be New Paltz, where a town and village exist for no good reason other than tradition.

Yet even there, the dialogue has turned out to be a bit too raw.

You don't have to focus on the facts; just listen to the opinions. A study to estimate the costs and savings from a merger is not worth considering because "almost everything about it is wrong." One side questions if the other "really wants answers" because it has been hard to get them to a meeting. The other side says that is "ridiculous."

An estimate of higher costs is an honest attempt to come up with real figures, not a threat one side says. Well, the other replies, "That may not be a threat, but I feel threatened. And uncomfortable."

Then there's the mayor, who called some of those involved in the discussion "liars," leading them to respond that they could no longer tolerate his "continuing defamation of respected community members."

If this educated and articulate crowd can't manage to get through studies and meetings without insults and name calling, it's not clear who can.

The studies may continue, but it is not too far-fetched to now declare the crusade to merge and trim unnecessary layers of government a failure.